The Pledge & "Under God."

[Jedi]

I really didn't want to jump in... but I couldn't resist. This is gonna be fun. =)

I saw your name as someone who replied to this topic, and I knew those were the thoughts going through your head.

If people "expect" me to pray or say grace at the dinner table, I can choose not to go have dinner with them. If people "expect" me to say the pledge of allegiance in a public high school, I would have no choice to not go to class since it is an activity sponsored by the school authorities. The issue isn't whether saying the pledge is voluntary or not - it has always been voluntary. The issue is whether it is legal for a public school to lead or sponsor a pledge that includes religious references.

And yet the rub comes in where “God” is not specified toward any religion, and so as I’ve explained before, even an atheist could view this “God” being spoken of as evolution – the alleged force responsible for the creation of the world/life.

The capital G in "God" clearly refers to the Christian deity in the pledge. Denial of this is a completely specious claim.

I beg to differ. Does this mean that a Muslim or Jew can’t say “God” in reference to their deity? Come now, blader, there’s no reference whatsoever exclusively to Christianity in the pledge. “God” is not just a Christian term, and the capital “G” is merely capitalized since it is a proper noun.

As proof, we need to look no further than the motives behind the addition of "under God" to the pledge 50 years ago.

The motivation of its birth doesn’t mean its application is now restricted.

Further. the very definition of "God" (or "god", for that matter) is a reference to some form of supernatural deity, entity, or being.

Ah, so now it depends on perspective and how you define “God.” I’m sorry to say that not all people believe that God is a supernatural being outside of nature, yet they still refer to him as God. It seems the most basic definition of God is “God=creator.” Anything beyond that tends to start leaning toward a given particular religion.

Telling people to just pretend it's referring to something natural is akin to telling you to pretend that "under Satan" really means "under God."

Not really, since that would mean “Satan=God,” and that’s nowhere in the definition of either of them, unlike the understanding of “God=creator.”

In addition to my above point, atheists don't worship the theory of evolution any more than they do the theory of gravity. Nice try, but no dice there.

Funny – I never said they did. You’re now assuming that everyone must worship whatever God exists, and that is a very Christian idea.

There's no rational reason to tell me to pretend that the "God" in that pledge is really referring to string theory or something.

I’m saying that by simply leaving it as “God,” it refers to whatever being/force/thing created everything. If you want to assert that string theory did it, then string theory would be God.

"God" or god is a reference to the supernatural, period.

You don’t know that, and trying to assert this as true is to assert your definition of “God” over any other definition (even the most basic of which I’ve given of “God=creator.”)

You really should have taken Rufus' suggestion and read the case he referenced. The scenario you described is not what the case alludes to at all by the use of the word "coercion." By no means are adverse social consequences from an action grounds for making anything illegal, so your dinner table analogy (as I explained above), is inapplicable. Here is, briefly, what the coercion test really is.

That’s what I said it was, more or less. The school (or some other establishment) sponsoring something that tends to pressure someone to do something, even though it’s not mandatory. However, using this logic, the pledge shouldn’t be said at all in school (since it might coerce someone who doesn’t want to say it). It’s no longer a matter of the phrase “under God,” but in order to be consistent, you must include the entire pledge.

I thought better of you than to come up with a strawman[sic] like comparing the issue of public school sponsored recitations of a pledge that contains "under God" against a folk song. Nothing in the case banned the word "God" from all mention by anyone. I've already explained the reasons behind the case as well as what it wants to accomplish and why. Forget it. This comparison doesn't have enough merit to deserve a response in the first place.

Ah, but they’re very parallel. A lot of establishments sing “God Bless America” just like schools recite the pledge over the intercom. Neither is mandatory, but both are done in the same manner. You can’t get rid of one without clawing at the other. Why should people feel “pressured” to say the pledge of allegiance and not feel the same way when everyone is asked to stand/sing “God Bless America” or even the National Anthem? They all fall into the same exact category the pledge does as far as the beloved coercion test goes. The coercion test must be applied to all of these instances, or none at all.

 

[blader]

Today at 03:50 PM Jedi said this in Post #21 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=687077#post687077)

And yet the rub comes in where “God” is not specified toward any religion, and so as I’ve explained before, even an atheist could view this “God” being spoken of as evolution – the alleged force responsible for the creation of the world/life.

The motivation of its birth doesn’t mean its application is now restricted.

Ah, so now it depends on perspective and how you define “God.” I’m sorry to say that not all people believe that God is a supernatural being outside of nature, yet they still refer to him as God. It seems the most basic definition of God is “God=creator.” Anything beyond that tends to start leaning toward a given particular religion.

Not really, since that would mean “Satan=God,” and that’s nowhere in the definition of either of them, unlike the understanding of “God=creator.”

I’m saying that by simply leaving it as “God,” it refers to whatever being/force/thing created everything. If you want to assert that string theory did it, then string theory would be God.

You don’t know that, and trying to assert this as true is to assert your definition of “God” over any other definition (even the most basic of which I’ve given of “God=creator.”)

You're only right if your most basic definition of God is the most basic definition of God. It is not. I am not asserting "my" definition of God over any other definition. I am asserting the definitions of the dictionary as well as common usage over your definition. Quite a distinction, there. That said, there is a reason the "g" in "God" is capitalized. As I have said before, the capitalized "God" has a meaning distinct from the regular "god."

American Heritage Dictionary:

1. God <-- capitalized
1. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
2. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.

Webster's Revised:

god

\God\ (once again, the capitalized definition) 1. A being conceived of as possessing supernatural power, and to be propitiated by sacrifice, worship, etc.; a divinity; a deity; an object of worship; an idol.

It's absolutely ludicrous to try to twist and mold these definitions into something that refers to an entirely unsupernatural scientific theory. Even if I grant you that "God" (the capitalized one!) could be taken to simply only mean "creator", there's still problems. In this context, "creator" clearly refers to some kind of being and every single dictionary definition agrees with this. Evolution (and any other scientific theory) is not a "being" by any stretch of the imagination. It's merely the name of a series of observations that scientists have made from examining the evidence. Furthermore, evolution is a theory based entirely upon natural presuppositions, whereas "God" (again, the capitalized one!) always includes the quality of involving the supernatural. If this doesn't suit your fancy, then you should write your own dictionary.

It's an incredible stretch for anyone to make in an attempt to identify "God" with some scientific theory. Maybe you honestly might find it easy to make such a ridiculous stretch of the imagination, I don't know.

I beg to differ. Does this mean that a Muslim or Jew can’t say “God” in reference to their deity? Come now, blader, there’s no reference whatsoever exclusively to Christianity in the pledge. “God” is not just a Christian term, and the capital “G” is merely capitalized since it is a proper noun.

I'm sorry, you're right in this case. I actually meant to add a "Judeo" in front of the Christian (I honestly thought I did include it the first time around. My mistake!). Since Jews, Christians and Muslims all agree that the Old Testament is a holy book, they of course all refer to their deity as "God." That's the most common usage of the capitalized word. It might not be a Christian term exclusively, but the word (according to both common usage as well as the dictionary) has everything to do with religion and nothing at all to do with science, unless you want to conjure up some new meaning by some really awkward twisting of the given definitions... but I can't help that.

Funny – I never said they did. You’re now assuming that everyone must worship whatever God exists, and that is a very Christian idea.

Well, you're Christian, aren't you? So I figured you probably had some thing like that idea in mind when you mentioned something about our "beloved" evolution. My mistake.

Not really, since that would mean “Satan=God,” and that’s nowhere in the definition of either of them, unlike the understanding of “God=creator.”

Only that the dictionary adds the quality of "supernatural" to that "creator", and that evolution is not a "creator", but just a theory like any other. Still no dice.

I’m sorry to say that not all people believe that God is a supernatural being outside of nature, yet they still refer to him as God.

So who do you know that thinks "God" means "evolution?"

That’s what I said it was, more or less.

From that analogy you chose - less.

The school (or some other establishment) sponsoring something that tends to pressure someone to do something, even though it’s not mandatory. However, using this logic, the pledge shouldn’t be said at all in school (since it might coerce someone who doesn’t want to say it). It’s no longer a matter of the phrase “under God,” but in order to be consistent, you must include the entire pledge.

Not so. In a legal context, the Coercion Test is only applied to situations involving religious freedom. It would not be reasonable for it to be used any situation you like, or else it would be unconstitutional for schools to even give homework, and we all know a lot of kids don't like homework! =)

Ah, but they’re very parallel. A lot of establishments sing “God Bless America” just like schools recite the pledge over the intercom. Neither is mandatory, but both are done in the same manner. You can’t get rid of one without clawing at the other. Why should people feel “pressured” to say the pledge of allegiance and not feel the same way when everyone is asked to stand/sing “God Bless America” or even the National Anthem? They all fall into the same exact category the pledge does as far as the beloved coercion test goes. The coercion test must be applied to all of these instances, or none at all.

No, they're not. The same flaw is here as was present in your "dinner manners" analogy. If the establishments singing "God Bless America" are privately owned establishments, there's no Constitutional law that can prevent them from doing so. Any patrons who are offended or uncomfortable or "feel pressured" are free to leave and take their business elsewhere, and the establishment owners are free to run their establishment as they see fit. There's no clawing at that right at all.

Once again, the case in question revolves around public (I can't stress that enough) institutions sponsoring the recital of a pledge containing a religious message. And not just any public institution, but a school where the people who are most affected by it are not free to leave and go elsewhere. There is a fine line between these two situations. I'm sure you don't need me to tell you where this line is drawn.

Despite all the hub bub about school prayer "bans", individual students are free to pray, recite the pledge, wear religious symbols, read the Bible where ever and when ever they want. This case limits the rights of public schools to implicitly impose religious views on their students, not the rights of students themselves.

BTW: "Strawman" is an English word.

 

[Jedi]

You're only right if your most basic definition of God is the most basic definition of God. It is not. I am not asserting "my" definition of God over any other definition. I am asserting the definitions of the dictionary as well as common usage over your definition. Quite a distinction, there.

And since there are different characteristics attributed to God, I think we should take the underlying theme nearly all people see God to be: The creating force behind the Universe. I cannot see how anyone could get a more basic, general definition of God than that.

It's absolutely ludicrous to try to twist and mold these definitions into something that refers to an entirely unsupernatural scientific theory.

Not really. If evolution is responsible for creating all life, then evolution is “God,” since it is responsible for life. It fits the most basic understanding of what we mean by “God.”

In this context, "creator" clearly refers to some kind of being and every single dictionary definition agrees with this.

The term “God” isn’t a closed definition, since people mean different things when using the same word. This wouldn’t be the case if the definition of “God” were as universal as you seem to be asserting. If God is what is responsible for life, and the atheists holds that evolution is responsible for life, then evolution=God. At Webster.com, one definition given for God (capitalized) is the “supreme or ultimate reality,” while another given is “the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe,” and still another definition as “one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality.” Since there’s more than one definition, again, I assert that we must go to the very basic definition of God=creator.

If this doesn't suit your fancy, then you should write your own dictionary.

How about I just provide alternate definitions that support my stance straight from Webster.com? I like that idea much better.

It's an incredible stretch for anyone to make in an attempt to identify "God" with some scientific theory. Maybe you honestly might find it easy to make such a ridiculous stretch of the imagination, I don't know.

Come now, it’s not that hard to understand. Whatever is responsible for all life is “God.” The atheist asserts this to be evolution (meaning God is more of a concept or system), while the Christian asserts this to be Jehovah (meaning God is more of a person than a mere concept).

I'm sorry, you're right in this case. I actually meant to add a "Judeo" in front of the Christian (I honestly thought I did include it the first time around. My mistake!).

That’s all right – it happens.

Only that the dictionary adds the quality of "supernatural" to that "creator", and that evolution is not a "creator", but just a theory like any other. Still no dice.

Evolution is not a “creator?” Well, then what is evolution? If it is responsible for life, then surely we can agree that would mean evolution (blind chance/natural selection) created life.

So who do you know that thinks "God" means "evolution?"

If God is what created world, and an atheist asserts that evolution is what created world, then it follows that evolution=God.

Not so. In a legal context, the Coercion Test is only applied to situations involving religious freedom.

Boy, that’s very inconsistent of them. Why should it apply only to religion? That doesn’t make much sense.

It would not be reasonable for it to be used any situation you like, or else it would be unconstitutional for schools to even give homework, and we all know a lot of kids don't like homework! =)

Yeah, that’s what I was aiming at here. It would be absurd to apply this concept with consistency in every field, but to not do so would be inconsistent (duh) and seemingly arbitrary.

If the establishments singing "God Bless America" are privately owned establishments, there's no Constitutional law that can prevent them from doing so. Any patrons who are offended or uncomfortable or "feel pressured" are free to leave and take their business elsewhere, and the establishment owners are free to run their establishment as they see fit. There's no clawing at that right at all.

And so the presupposition here is that every single instance of a place that sings “God Bless America” must be privately owned for it to be okay. If not, then it is very well in the same boat. However, I still feel that even the National Anthem is in this too, since people may feel “pressured” to stand up, sing, or at least show respect, because there doesn’t appear to be any reason to apply the coercion test only to religious matters. It’s like using a double-standard.

Despite all the hub bub about school prayer "bans", individual students are free to pray, recite the pledge, wear religious symbols, read the Bible where ever and when ever they want. This case limits the rights of public schools to implicitly impose religious views on their students, not the rights of students themselves.

Of course, and I don’t think it’s worth the effort to fight for public school prayers at football games or anything of the sort. Do these people think that God will not hear them if they’re not praying over the intercom? While I don’t think that schools or the government should support any particular religion, I think in the instance of “under God” in the pledge is so general that it can be applied to nearly anything people hold as responsible for the creation of the world.

BTW: "Strawman" is an English word.

Perhaps, but not according to Webster.com or Microsoft Word at least. Both seem to want to put a space in-between “straw” and “man,” and I figure that between the two of them, my spelling should be fairly accurate. They’re the basis for my spelling, so my “[sic]’s” and my own spelling is all according to them, which I think is reasonable.

 

[* kittie *]

if this ruling isn't changed, i just "hope" i don't hear another "God bless america" if something bad happens to the country.

 

[tom]

&nbsp;the govornment will try anything to get the pledged removed from&nbsp; it is our right lets protect it from being removed

 

[* kittie *]

CNN.com says that nearly 9 out of 10 Americans believe that "under God" should remain.
margin of error is +/- 4%
that is pretty interesting...
you should also take into account that only 36% wished that the govt. promote religion, so the poeple polled were not all church members.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/06/29/poll.pledge/index.html

 

[* kittie *]

this one is interesting. this is about the little girl involved in the "under God" case, her father, and her mother.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/07/16/pledge.mother/index.html

"Her response was, 'That's OK, Mom, because even if they do change the Pledge of Allegiance, I'll still say "under God," and no one will know that I'm breaking the law,'" Banning said.

 

[blader]

Yesterday at 08:55 PM Jedi said this in Post #23 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=687680#post687680)

And since there are different characteristics attributed to God, I think we should take the underlying theme nearly all people see God to be: The creating force behind the Universe. I cannot see how anyone could get a more basic, general definition of God than that.

I don't see God to mean that. It would be a stretch for nearly all people to think that God could mean something entirely natural. You have no right to force all people who disagree with your particular leap of logic to see the word "God" as you do. The most common meaning of the capitalized God is not your most basic definition of simply some kind of creating force that could be supernatural or natural, and you know this very well.

Not really. If evolution is responsible for creating all life, then evolution is “God,” since it is responsible for life. It fits the most basic understanding of what we mean by “God.”

No it doesn't, because evolution is not an entity or being. It's the name of a theory.

Further, evolution doesn't even try to explain how life is created unless you're talking about the caricature of evolution by creationists. What you're talking about is abiogenesis, and evolution does not deal with that topic at all.

The term “God” isn’t a closed definition, since people mean different things when using the same word. This wouldn’t be the case if the definition of “God” were as universal as you seem to be asserting. If God is what is responsible for life, and the atheists holds that evolution is responsible for life, then evolution=God. At Webster.com, one definition given for God (capitalized) is the “supreme or ultimate reality,” while another given is “the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe,” and still another definition as “one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality.” Since there’s more than one definition, again, I assert that we must go to the very basic definition of God=creator.

Actually, "supreme or ultimate" reality is not a complete definition of the word at all. That is not how you're supposed to read a dictionary. There's only two definitions in that particular listing, not three. Here's the definition for you again:

1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind

The "supreme or ultimate reality" is a prefix applied to the sub definitions of a and b. Even here, there's absolutely nothing that would justify you telling all the atheists to just pretend that God means a scientific theory. Really, you can try and use all the rhetoric in the world to convince me that it could be done, but the commonly accepted definition is simply the Judeo-Christian God, and if not that, then some kind of supernatural deity. There is no justification for you to tell others to just pretend it doesn't mean what you understand it to mean yourself when you say the pledge.

How about I just provide alternate definitions that support my stance straight from Webster.com? I like that idea much better.

I'd like that too. Where is it?

Come now, it’s not that hard to understand. Whatever is responsible for all life is “God.” The atheist asserts this to be evolution (meaning God is more of a concept or system), while the Christian asserts this to be Jehovah (meaning God is more of a person than a mere concept).

Like I said, it doesn't fit into the two traits that every single dictionary definition has of this "God." One is that it's some kind of being or entity, and the other is that it is supernatural. There's no way you can twist the meaning of "God" into meaning an entirely natural scientific theory.

I take that back. Yes, there are ways where you can twist the meaning of the word. But that doesn't mean it's rational to force others to make the same twist. That choice should be left to others to decide. All I (and you!) know is that most people do not identify the word "God" with "evolution" or anything free of religious connotations.

Evolution is not a “creator?” Well, then what is evolution? If it is responsible for life, then surely we can agree that would mean evolution (blind chance/natural selection) created life.

We can't, because it's not responsible for life. Evolution is the variation in alleles in species of organisms over time. The topic of abiogenesis is another one altogether.

If God is what created world, and an atheist asserts that evolution is what created world, then it follows that evolution=God.

It would, if an atheist asserts that. I certainly don't. I fail to make the link between the theory of evolution and the creation of planets.

Boy, that’s very inconsistent of them. Why should it apply only to religion? That doesn’t make much sense.

Yeah, that’s what I was aiming at here. It would be absurd to apply this concept with consistency in every field, but to not do so would be inconsistent (duh) and seemingly arbitrary.

It's not arbitrary. Freedom of religion is a critical right protected by the First Amendment. In this case then, the coercion test is justified.

And so the presupposition here is that every single instance of a place that sings “God Bless America” must be privately owned for it to be okay. If not, then it is very well in the same boat.

No, still not entirely correct. Once again, a private individual is free to say the Pledge, sing that song, read the Bible, pray, whatever he or she likes anywhere she wants, whether that place is private or public. The presupposition is that a religious message must not be sponsored by the authorities of a public institution to be okay. If not, then it is very well in the same boat.

However, I still feel that even the National Anthem is in this too, since people may feel “pressured” to stand up, sing, or at least show respect, because there doesn’t appear to be any reason to apply the coercion test only to religious matters. It’s like using a double-standard.

Since there's no obvious religious content in the National Anthem, your feelings are irrelevant. If there were, then the coercion test applies. There's a clear standard here, and it is applied consistently.

Of course, and I don’t think it’s worth the effort to fight for public school prayers at football games or anything of the sort. Do these people think that God will not hear them if they’re not praying over the intercom? While I don’t think that schools or the government should support any particular religion, I think in the instance of “under God” in the pledge is so general that it can be applied to nearly anything people hold as responsible for the creation of the world.

But if you want to equate a scientific theory with the use of "God" in the pledge, then that would be seriously disingenuous. You know very well that most people, theists or not, identify the word "God" with the Judeo-Christian God in this country. All other facets aside, to simply force atheists or agnostics who identify the word "God" with the Judeo Christian God (as most of them do!) to pretend it really means some other definition and then stretch that definition to include evolution everytime the pledge is recited alone is an infringement upon their rights.

Besides, it wouldn't matter even if they some did make such a huge twist and equate "God" with evolution. Most people would not make this twist, atheist or not, and would equate the word with the Judeo-Christian God. School led recitals the pledge, "in a school context may appear to the nonbeliever or dissenter to be an attempt to employ the machinery of the State to enforce a religious orthodoxy." (505 U.S. 577) And to most non-believers, it does. That's pretty much all there is to it.

Perhaps, but not according to Webster.com or Microsoft Word at least. Both seem to want to put a space in-between “straw” and “man,” and I figure that between the two of them, my spelling should be fairly accurate. They’re the basis for my spelling, so my “[sic]’s” and my own spelling is all according to them, which I think is reasonable.

Ah. Word. I see now. Anyway, Princeton University disagrees.

 

[Jedi]

I don't see God to mean that. It would be a stretch for nearly all people to think that God could mean something entirely natural. You have no right to force all people who disagree with your particular leap of logic to see the word "God" as you do.

I think you’re being very fallacious now. Saying that whatever created the world is God is hardly a “leap of logic.” The third definition at Webster.com is rather short and to the point in defining God as “a person or thing of supreme value.” If evolution is what rules the world, then wouldn’t it be defined as God according to this?

No it doesn't, because evolution is not an entity or being. It's the name of a theory.

And if it is responsible for life on earth, then it is “God” in the sense that it brought the world about.

Further, evolution doesn't even try to explain how life is created unless you're talking about the caricature of evolution by creationists. What you're talking about is abiogenesis, and evolution does not deal with that topic at all.

And some people refer to the study of first life as “chemical evolution.” It seems that “evolution” has a much more elaborate application nowadays. At any rate, I think this is splitting hairs, since the point remains the same. Even the atheist holds something to be the cause of why the world exists, and whatever that may be would be “God.”

Really, you can try and use all the rhetoric in the world to convince me that it could be done, but the commonly accepted definition is simply the Judeo-Christian God, and if not that, then some kind of supernatural deity. There is no justification for you to tell others to just pretend it doesn't mean what you understand it to mean yourself when you say the pledge.

Again, when people use the word “God,” they aren’t talking about the same thing. For instance, Allah is not Jehovah. To say so would be like saying everyone who is named “Jack” is the same person. Since there are variants on what people mean when they say the word “God,” I think it shouldn’t be too far-fetched to boil it down to the basics of which all people agree on: God is what created the world. The definition can apply to a strictly supernatural being beyond nature, but that doesn’t mean that it must only be used as such a reference any more than a Christian who says “God” is obligated to refer to the Muslim’s idea of “God.”

All I (and you!) know is that most people do not identify the word "God" with "evolution" or anything free of religious connotations.

Agreed, however, like I said, the definition of what God is like differs depending on whom you talk to. “God” is a very general term, but the constant understanding of what that word is meant to refer to is the thing that created the world.

It would, if an atheist asserts that. I certainly don't. I fail to make the link between the theory of evolution and the creation of planets.

Really? Some people refer to that as “Cosmic Evolution,” although I’m not sure how widespread such terms are in the scientific world. Surely if evolution is where life came from, and there is no guiding mind putting things together, then planets came about the same way (i.e. blind chance, and if possible, natural selection).

It's not arbitrary. Freedom of religion is a critical right protected by the First Amendment. In this case then, the coercion test is justified.

So schools can pressure kids into saying the pledge of allegiance (just without “Under God”), and it’s perfectly okay, while as soon as you throw “Under God” in there, it’s no longer right to pressure kids into doing something? Be it constitutional or not, that seems like a very obvious double standard. It is like saying, “We will only prevent you from being pressured to do stuff sometimes.”

No, still not entirely correct. Once again, a private individual is free to say the Pledge, sing that song, read the Bible, pray, whatever he or she likes anywhere she wants, whether that place is private or public. The presupposition is that a religious message must not be sponsored by the authorities of a public institution to be okay. If not, then it is very well in the same boat.

That’s what I meant when I said “a place that sings...” – perhaps I should have been more clear.

But if you want to equate a scientific theory with the use of "God" in the pledge, then that would be seriously disingenuous. You know very well that most people, theists or not, identify the word "God" with the Judeo-Christian God in this country. All other facets aside, to simply force atheists or agnostics who identify the word "God" with the Judeo Christian God (as most of them do!) to pretend it really means some other definition and then stretch that definition to include evolution everytime the pledge is recited alone is an infringement upon their rights.

Hardly. Again, it doesn’t say “One nation, under the Judeo-Christian God,” but rather plain and simple “under God.” What you think God is like is up to you.

Ah. Word. I see now. Anyway, Princeton University disagrees.

I’ll stick with Merriam-Webster, as they seem to be a higher authority than Princeton on words & English (as that is their entire emphasis).

 

[blader]

Today at 02:31 AM Jedi said this in Post #29 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=688533#post688533)

I think you’re being very fallacious now. Saying that whatever created the world is God is hardly a “leap of logic.” The third definition at Webster.com is rather short and to the point in defining God as “a person or thing of supreme value.” If evolution is what rules the world, then wouldn’t it be defined as God according to this?

Talk about fallacious leaps of logic! Notice the distinction that Webster makes between the capitalized proper noun God and the lower case god. The third definition is for the general noun, not the proper, capitalized noun. As such, your logic in no way works for the correct definition.

And if it is responsible for life on earth, then it is “God” in the sense that it brought the world about.

No, because as I have explained before, the word "God", even in the sense of creator, inevitably contains certain religious and supernatural connotations which is outside the scope of any scientific theory.

And some people refer to the study of first life as “chemical evolution.” It seems that “evolution” has a much more elaborate application nowadays. At any rate, I think this is splitting hairs, since the point remains the same. Even the atheist holds something to be the cause of why the world exists, and whatever that may be would be “God.”

An atheist does not claim to know why the world or the universe exists, or even if there is a why at all. Again, you can say that they can pretend it's God, but that's not a decision for you to make. If most people, believers or not, understand the meaning of the word to be a supernatural deity, then you are infringing upon the rights of others by insisting that they pretend that it means something else. You or anyone else can not force a person to make this decision, and that is exactly what you are trying to do.

The issue isn't whether or not the word "God" can (by some stretch of the meaning) simply mean some (entirely natural!) "thing" which is the creator. The issue is whether or not individuals accept this meaning or definition. As you have agreed, the vast majority do not accept this stretched definition.

For this group then, the reasoning of the case law applies while your stretching of the definition does not. You can not force the group to accept your interpretation of the word. On the other hand, for your select group of private individuals who like to refer to the theory of evolution as "God," they are as always free to recite the pledge whenever and whereever they want.

Again, when people use the word “God,” they aren’t talking about the same thing. For instance, Allah is not Jehovah. To say so would be like saying everyone who is named “Jack” is the same person. Since there are variants on what people mean when they say the word “God,” I think it shouldn’t be too far-fetched to boil it down to the basics of which all people agree on: God is what created the world. The definition can apply to a strictly supernatural being beyond nature, but that doesn’t mean that it must only be used as such a reference any more than a Christian who says “God” is obligated to refer to the Muslim’s idea of “God.”

By the Judeo-Christian God, I am referring to the God of the Old Testament. I won't argue here about the particulars of their beliefs, and I'm sure you won't hesitate to point out that "but we worship different Gods!" Nevertheless, it's a fact that whatever God they think they worship is the same one that appears in the Old Testament, a book regarded as holy by all three beliefs.

Agreed, however, like I said, the definition of what God is like differs depending on whom you talk to. “God” is a very general term, but the constant understanding of what that word is meant to refer to is the thing that created the world.

That's fine. Let me explain this again:

If you can find some atheist out there that thinks "God" means "evolution" every time he says the pledge, great! He shouldn't be offended by the pledge any more than the Christian next to him, and he can still recite his evolution pledge of allegiance any time he likes.

But we do agree that most people do not accept this interpretation, and understand that the word refers exactly to the Judeo Christian God. You can not tell others to just pretend that it means something else. I know I couldn't in good conscience do this, so the same reasoning as was in case law applies here.

Really? Some people refer to that as “Cosmic Evolution,” although I’m not sure how widespread such terms are in the scientific world. Surely if evolution is where life came from, and there is no guiding mind putting things together, then planets came about the same way (i.e. blind chance, and if possible, natural selection).

Yes, they came about through entirely natural causes. Yet the definitions all include some form of supernatural connotation. Does not apply.

Also, Evolution in that context simply means "change" rather than the theory of variation through natural selection.

So schools can pressure kids into saying the pledge of allegiance (just without “Under God”), and it’s perfectly okay, while as soon as you throw “Under God” in there, it’s no longer right to pressure kids into doing something? Be it constitutional or not, that seems like a very obvious double standard. It is like saying, “We will only prevent you from being pressured to do stuff sometimes.”

Call it whatever you like. We will only prevent you from being pressured to do stuff that violates your constitutional rights is a perfectly reasonable and consistent stance to take.

That’s what I meant when I said “a place that sings...” – perhaps I should have been more clear.

Well in that case, it fails the coercion test and in unconstitutional if the recital is led by the authorities of a public school. The religious content of that song is even stronger than that of the Pledge, and could be construed as a clear indication of a school's sponsorship of theism. That should be quite clear. I just hope you're not going to try to argue that the song could really mean "Evolution Bless America!" Students, again, are free to sing whatever song they like on school grounds, as long as they are doing it of their own accord.

Hardly. Again, it doesn’t say “One nation, under the Judeo-Christian God,” but rather plain and simple “under God.” What you think God is like is up to you.

Exactly, it is up to the individual people to decide what they think it is, not you. We both agree that nearly all people (theists and atheists alike) take the word to mean something with religious and supernatural connotations. In fact, I hope you won't deny that most people in this country understand the word in its proper noun form to mean some thing related to the Judeo-Christian God. So there it is. If (hypothetically!) some people happen to think it's evolution, then so be it. Their rights are unaffected by the ruling. The ruling was made for the majority of people who don't think that "God" means evolution or some other entirely natural phenomenon.

I’ll stick with Merriam-Webster, as they seem to be a higher authority than Princeton on words & English (as that is their entire emphasis).

Coolio. Butt goodd enoughh forr Princetonn, goodd enoughh forr mee.

 

[Jedi]

Talk about fallacious leaps of logic! Notice the distinction that Webster makes between the capitalized proper noun God and the lower case god. The third definition is for the general noun, not the proper, capitalized noun. As such, your logic in no way works for the correct definition.

Ah, yes – forgot about that. At any rate, my assertion stands: I can’t think of anyone who would think it’s a fallacious leap of logic to say that God=what created the world.

An atheist does not claim to know why the world or the universe exists, or even if there is a why at all.

Really? You might want to talk to some of the self-proclaimed atheists here then. They seem to be a little confused. The point of view you're describing seems to be characteristic of an agnostic rather than an atheist.

Again, you can say that they can pretend it's God, but that's not a decision for you to make.

First, they don’t have to “pretend” anything. God=creator, and so whatever force they believe brought this world about would be the God of mention to them when they recited it. Furthermore, I never even tried to make that decision for them. What I’ve been saying all this time is that people mean different things when they say the word “God,” and so it is only reasonable to take the most basic, common meaning of them all (God=what created the world) and apply it to this situation.

If most people, believers or not, understand the meaning of the word to be a supernatural deity, then you are infringing upon the rights of others by insisting that they pretend that it means something else. You or anyone else can not force a person to make this decision, and that is exactly what you are trying to do.

Nope, wrong again. I’m saying that people define “God” as they want, and that definition varies depending on who you ask. I’m not forcing anyone to choose anything, but am only pointing out that the term “God” is so bloody general that it can cover the atheists belief of how the world came about as well as the Christian’s and the Muslim’s.

The issue isn't whether if the word "God" can (by some stretch of the meaning) simply mean some (entirely natural!) "thing" is the creator. The issue is whether or not individuals accept this meaning or definition.

So now others have to agree with you in order for you to believe God to be a particular way? That's rather hard to swallow.

By the Judeo-Christian God, I am referring to the God of the Old Testament. I won't argue here about the particulars of their beliefs, and I'm sure you won't hesitate to point out that "but we worship different Gods!" Nevertheless, it's a fact that whatever God they worship is the one that appears in the Old Testament, a book regarded as holy by all three beliefs.

From my readings, Islam’s account of the events of the Old Testament vary greatly from the Christian/Jewish account. Again, this is merely an illustration that people mean different things when they say “God,” and since that term is so general, it covers a wide enough range of beliefs as to span even into the realm of science.

If you can find some atheist out there that thinks "God" means "evolution" every time he says the pledge, great! He shouldn't be offended by the pledge any more than the Christian next to him, and he can still recite his evolution pledge of allegiance any time he likes.

Precisely.

But we do agree that most people do not accept this interpretation, and understand that the word refers exactly to the Judeo Christian God. You can not tell others to just pretend that it means something else. I know I couldn't in good conscience do this, so the same reasoning as was in case law applies here.

But again, I’m not telling people to “pretend” that the term “God” in the pledge of allegiance refers to something that is different from what people generally see God to be – the creator of the world. I merely assert that we should keep the term “God” in the most basic sense of “Agent that brought about the world’s creation,” since that is what nearly all people seem to agree about when using the term “God.”

Exactly, it is up to the individual people to decide what they think it is, not you.

That’s exactly the point! If God is whatever people want it to be, then there’s no reason for people to get their panties in a twist over the mention of “God” in the pledge, since the reference depends on who’s saying it.

We both agree that nearly all people (theists and atheists alike) take the word to mean something with religious and supernatural connotations. In fact, I hope you won't deny that most people in this country understand the word in its proper noun form to mean some thing related to the Judeo-Christian God. So there it is.

So does this mean that when someone calls out the name “Jack,” everyone must draw the connection in their head to the very same person? That’s nonsensical, since not everyone means the same reference in their use of the term “Jack.” Suppose there were a group of people around me who knew “Jack” to refer to one individual. However, I knew a different “Jack” and when I spoke of him, I wasn’t speaking of the “Jack” everyone knew. My view of “Jack” didn’t all of a sudden become dependant upon what they saw it as, and the same concept applies to the situation of “God” in the pledge.

Coolio. Butt goodd enoughh forr Princetonn, goodd enoughh forr mee.

Har, har.

 

[blader]

Today at 03:46 AM Jedi said this in Post #31 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=688714#post688714)

Ah, yes – forgot about that. At any rate, my assertion stands: I can’t think of anyone who would think it’s a fallacious leap of logic to say that God=what created the world.

Yes, but the dictionary includes other traits in that definition, no? They are there for a reason. It would be a fallacious leap of logic to ignore the supernatural descriptors present in both of the definitions. I thought you were going to stick with the higher authority of Merrian-Webster?

If your definition of "what created the world" is not limited to the supernatural, then I can help you with that one: me.

Really? You might want to talk to some of the self-proclaimed atheists here then. They seem to be a little confused. The point of view you're describing seems to be characteristic of an agnostic rather than an atheist.

They probably are confused. It's every bit as religious to say you know that there is no God and that there is no reason behind our existence as it is to be a Muslim or a Christian. I use the terms agnostic and atheist interchangably, personally, because I understand the term atheist to mean just that - a person who is not a theist. Although I am what you would call an agnostic, I also consider myself an atheist.

Anyway, that's neither here nor there. What I should have said is "Not all atheists claim... "

First, they don’t have to “pretend” anything. God=creator, and so whatever force they believe brought this world about would be the God of mention to them when they recited it. Furthermore, I never even tried to make that decision for them. What I’ve been saying all this time is that people mean different things when they say the word “God,” and so it is only reasonable to take the most basic, common meaning of them all (God=what created the world) and apply it to this situation.

Nope, once again, you are still ignoring that most people can not seperate the religious and supernatural connotations from the word. I can't imagine how I would be doing anything other than pretending that the word God means something it doesn't. Your "most basic, common meaning" is simply not a meaning that most people accept. When they say "God," most people mean the Judeo-Christian God, whether they believe in it or not. And that's the issue.

Nope, wrong again. I’m saying that people define “God” as they want, and that definition varies depending on who you ask. I’m not forcing anyone to choose anything, but am only pointing out that the term “God” is so bloody general that it can cover the atheists belief of how the world came about as well as the Christian’s and the Muslim’s.

Logic. The problem is that most people's definition of "God" is not general at all. I in particular disagree with you trying to say that "God" could mean an entirely natural cause. And I also disagree that the word "God" means creator, to me, it simply means the Judeo-Christian God. What you are trying to do is force people to choose your most "general" definition of God over the commonly accepted definition. I refuse to make this choice because I can't in good conscience pretend that it means anything else than what it is intended to mean.

Think about it. If you're going to try to convince me that the most general definition of a rabbit is an animal, so a dog is a rabbit, then of course I will disagree with your definition. If I say a rabbit is an animal with long ears, and you insist that the rabbit is just an animal, then we have different definitions of the word, even though your definition is inclusive of mine.

Similarly, you are trying to force your different (although more general... but nevertheless incorrect) definition of God upon everyone (theist and atheist) who thinks that "God" just means a supernatural deity of some kind, or even just the Judeo-Christian God. I am one of those people.

So now others have to agree with you in order for you to believe God to be a particular way? That's rather hard to swallow.

No, you just misinterpreted what I said: "The issue isn't whether if the word "God" can (by some stretch of the meaning) simply mean some (entirely natural!) "thing" is the creator. The issue is whether or not individuals accept this meaning or definition." By "individuals", I dont mean "others." I mean individuals. If an individual doesn't accept your stretched meaning, then it doesn't mean what you want it to mean to that individual. Most individuals don't accept your stretched definition, so that's that. You can't force individuals to accept your more "general" definition because the meaning of the capitalized pronoun God is a unique and specific one for most individuals.

From my readings, Islam’s account of the events of the Old Testament vary greatly from the Christian/Jewish account. Again, this is merely an illustration that people mean different things when they say “God,” and since that term is so general, it covers a wide enough range of beliefs as to span even into the realm of science.

All that illustrates is that people mean different supernatural deities when they say "God." No scientist ever calls a scientific theory by the term "God", and no sane person I've ever met thinks "God" means some scientific theory. It's an incredible stretch, Brace.

But again, I’m not telling people to “pretend” that the term “God” in the pledge of allegiance refers to something that is different from what people generally see God to be – the creator of the world. I merely assert that we should keep the term “God” in the most basic sense of “Agent that brought about the world’s creation,” since that is what nearly all people seem to agree about when using the term “God.”

Yes, but "God" means whatever the individual understands it to mean, right? To most people, including me, God means not simply just a creator, but a supernatural creator or deity. I hope you saw the merit in my earlier point, that although your definition is more inclusive of mine, it is nonetheless different since my definition (as well as Webster's!) requires certain supernatural attributes to this entity or being, whereas yours does not.

That’s exactly the point! If God is whatever people want it to be, then there’s no reason for people to get their panties in a twist over the mention of “God” in the pledge, since the reference depends on who’s saying it.

Again. A more general definition does not mean it's the same definition. It is entirely different.

So does this mean that when someone calls out the name “Jack,” everyone must draw the connection in their head to the very same person? That’s nonsensical, since not everyone means the same reference in their use of the term “Jack.” Suppose there were a group of people around me who knew “Jack” to refer to one individual. However, I knew a different “Jack” and when I spoke of him, I wasn’t speaking of the “Jack” everyone knew. My view of “Jack” didn’t all of a sudden become dependant upon what they saw it as, and the same concept applies to the situation of “God” in the pledge.

Nope it doesn't mean that, but the concept has no bearing at all in this situation. This has nothing to do certain people not really referring to the God everyone knows when they say God. For these people, their rights are not at all affected by the case of "under God" in the pledge, as once again they are free to say or ignore the pledge at their will any time or place they like, as usual.

What matters are the (most) people who do think that God means the God everyone knows every time they say God. To them, the recitation could be construed as government sponsorship of theism, and fails the coercion test.

What I don't understand is why there is such a controversy when the rights of no student to free expression or religion is affected or limited, only that of a public school institution to sponsor such activities.

Har, har.

Whatt? Noo [sicc] addedd heree? I'mm disappointedd.

 

[Jedi]

They probably are confused. It's every bit as religious to say you know that there is no God and that there is no reason behind our existence as it is to be a Muslim or a Christian.

Wow, I really could’ve used you in one of those debates here a while back.

Your "most basic, common meaning" is simply not a meaning that most people accept.

People don’t accept that God is what created the world? I’m not so sure about that.

And I also disagree that the word "God" means creator, to me, it simply means the Judeo-Christian God.

And that’s your perspective, although nowhere in the pledge does it say “Judeo-Christian God.” Like you said, we can’t tell people what they mean when they use the term “God.” If this is true, then why should people get upset over the term “God” in the pledge when it’s whatever they want it to refer to?

All that illustrates is that people mean different supernatural deities when they say "God." No scientist ever calls a scientific theory by the term "God", and no sane person I've ever met thinks "God" means some scientific theory. It's an incredible stretch, Brace.

Perhaps at a first glance, you’re right. However, in my discussions on the origin of the Universe, I have talked with people and it isn’t uncommon for the term “God” to refer to whatever caused the world to come into existence. I don’t mean to say that a specific theory is God, since a theory is merely an idea of man, but rather, whatever truly is the cause of the world’s existence would be referred to as “God,” and I really don’t see this to be far-fetched or stretched out at all.

Yes, but "God" means whatever the individual understands it to mean, right?

Yep, you got it.

To most people, including me, God means not simply just a creator, but a supernatural creator or deity.

And that’s okay, since it depends on your perception and what each person means when they say “God.” However, if “God” means whatever the individual understands it to mean, then where is the basis to tear it out of the pledge? If an individual can understand it to be whatever caused the world to come into existence (as I’ve talked with people who understand God this way), then that’s just it. People can’t say “It stands for the Christian God” as a basis to take it out, since the term really stands for anything the individual understands it to mean. All it’s really saying is that there is a thing/force/being/system/whatever that even the United States is under.

What matters are the (most) people who do think that God means the God everyone knows every time they say God. To them, the recitation could be construed as government sponsorship of theism, and fails the coercion test.

Agreed, but the rub comes in where “God” means whatever people understand it to mean, and so it’s not necessarily a sponsorship for Judeo-Christian theism, but it supports whatever the person’s notion of God is.

What I don't understand is why there is such a controversy when the rights of no student to free expression or religion is affected or limited, only that of a public school institution to sponsor such activities.

I think it’s for the same reason people got upset concerning prayer over the intercom or speakers (at football games) being banned in public schools. These people had their way of things being sponsored by the school, and now all of a sudden, it stops. Whether it be constitutional or not, stopping such sponsorship is going to get some people upset.

 

[blader]

Today at 05:20 AM Jedi said this in Post #33 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=688936#post688936)

Wow, I really could’ve used you in one of those debates here a while back.

I would have been glad to help!

People don’t accept that God is what created the world? I’m not so sure about that.

People don't accept your more general definition, which as I illustrated, is entirely different.

And that’s your perspective, although nowhere in the pledge does it say “Judeo-Christian God.” Like you said, we can’t tell people what they mean when they use the term “God.” If this is true, then why should people get upset over the term “God” in the pledge when it’s whatever they want it to refer to?

I should have better considered my choice of words. It would be wrong to say that the word means whatever a person wants it to mean. Would I should have said it that the word means to a person whatever the person thinks it means. I don't like to make up or stretch my own definitions when the commonly accepted one doesn't suit my fancy at the time. That is why people get upset over the term "God," because although I might want the word to mean something else (like for example, nothing), that doesn't change the fact that I (as well as the vast majority of people) think that the word refers to a supreme supernatural deity of some kind. And its their rights that are affected by the ruling, not any one else's.

Perhaps at a first glance, you’re right. However, in my discussions on the origin of the Universe, I have talked with people and it isn’t uncommon for the term “God” to refer to whatever caused the world to come into existence. I don’t mean to say that a specific theory is God, since a theory is merely an idea of man, but rather, whatever truly is the cause of the world’s existence would be referred to as “God,” and I really don’t see this to be far-fetched or stretched out at all.

Perhaps, but certainly the vast majority of atheists or agnostics would not use the capitalized pronoun "God" to refer to whatever caused the world to come into existence. They would say "whatever it is, we don't know what it is." It wouldn't be consistent for them to refer to this using the commonly accepted name of the Judeo-Christian God. I've explained before that the fact that the word could mean one thing or the other isn't really relevant at all to the case. It's what the (vast majority of) invididuals think the word means that is the issue.

And that’s okay, since it depends on your perception and what each person means when they say “God.” However, if “God” means whatever the individual understands it to mean, then where is the basis to tear it out of the pledge? If an individual can understand it to be whatever caused the world to come into existence (as I’ve talked with people who understand God this way), then that’s just it. People can’t say “It stands for the Christian God” as a basis to take it out, since the term really stands for anything the individual understands it to mean. All it’s really saying is that there is a thing/force/being/system/whatever that even the United States is under.

There's a distinction between what an individual "can" understand it to be, and what the individual really does think the word actually means in a given context. In this context, I challenge you to name a single person that doesn't think that the God in the pledge means anything other than the God of Judeo-Christian tradition. The truth is, nearly all (if not all) people clearly thinks that in this context, all the word "God" refers to is exactly that, God (in the Judeo Christian sense). It would be an unreasonable stretch of the imagination to say that in this context most people think it's reasonable to assume that it refers to some kind of entirely natural force, rather than a supernatural being or entity, regardless of what it actually is intended to mean. That's the reasoning of the courts, and I do agree with them.

Agreed, but the rub comes in where “God” means whatever people understand it to mean, and so it’s not necessarily a sponsorship for Judeo-Christian theism, but it supports whatever the person’s notion of God is.

As I have said before, most people in America agree that the word "God" refers to the Judeo-Christian God. That's just a common sense fact. If not that, then nearly all people in American agree that the word refers to at least some kind of supernatural deity. That's what the word means to me. I might "want" it to mean something else (like nothing) in this context, but that doesn't change what I actually think it means in this context. But I repeat myself.

I think it’s for the same reason people got upset concerning prayer over the intercom or speakers (at football games) being banned in public schools. These people had their way of things being sponsored by the school, and now all of a sudden, it stops. Whether it be constitutional or not, stopping such sponsorship is going to get some people upset.

I agree, it is understandable. But since the sponsorship was wrong in first place, the decisions were very fair and just, especially considering the fact no private citizen's rights has been limited as a result of them.

 

[Jedi]

I should have better considered my choice of words. It would be wrong to say that the word means whatever a person wants it to mean. Would I should have said it that the word means to a person whatever the person thinks it means. I don't like to make up or stretch my own definitions when the commonly accepted one doesn't suit my fancy at the time. That is why people get upset over the term "God," because although I might want the word to mean something else (like for example, nothing), that doesn't change the fact that I (as well as the vast majority of people) think that the word refers to a supreme supernatural deity of some kind. And its their rights that are affected by the ruling, not any one else's.

Then if most people just can’t seem to view God as whatever created the world, perhaps the court should say that this is what is what’s being referred to in the pledge when saying “God.” Anything else people want to add onto the meaning of “God” is surely their choice (i.e. God being the creator as seen by Christians, Muslims, Jews, or perhaps even atheists). Only if people were forced to say “God” in reference to the Judeo-Christian God when saying the pledge of allegiance would it be a problem, but like it was said before, no one can force people to refer to one thing or another when they use the term “God.”

There's a distinction between what an individual "can" understand it to be, and what the individual really does think the word actually means in a given context. In this context, I challenge you to name a single person that doesn't think that the God in the pledge means anything other than the God of Judeo-Christian tradition. The truth is, nearly all (if not all) people clearly thinks that in this context, all the word "God" refers to is exactly that, God (in the Judeo Christian sense).

I think this “context” of which you speak is only the American public in general. If the American population were Islamic (or some other religion), then it would appear that the context of “God” in the pledge would refer to Allah. However, this doesn’t necessarily have to be so, since you don’t have to refer to the same understanding as the Muslims when using the term “God.”

It would be an unreasonable stretch of the imagination to say that in this context most people think it's reasonable to assume that it refers to some kind of entirely natural force, rather than a supernatural being or entity, regardless of what it actually is intended to mean.

This is also considering that the vast majority of Americans aren’t atheists, and so referring to a completely natural force as what’s responsible for the creation of the world isn’t something they would do in the first place. I think if there were an overwhelming amount of atheists in the U.S., we wouldn’t find it uncommon for “God” to be a term used for whatever force created the world.

That's the reasoning of the courts, and I do agree with them.

As I recall, the court that continues to say the pledge is unconstitutional has been overturned more than any other court in the United States. It seems this court (of the 9th circuit) just isn’t with the system here. I don’t have a link or anything of the sort, but I’m sure it might be easy to find something using a search engine like Google or something.

 

[Blindfaith]

Jedi,

Just keep praying that the Supreme Court will hear the case and overturn it.&nbsp;

So far, the kids can still say "Under God" while saying the Pledge, so not all is lost .&nbsp; My daughter stated the ruling as such; "that's so stupid".&nbsp; Out of the mouths of babes .&nbsp; She also told me that if they take it out, she's still going to say it.&nbsp; I suppose she could receive a suspension for doing it, but I don't think so at that school.&nbsp;

 

[blader]

Today at 03:56 PM blindfaith said this in Post #36 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=689683#post689683)

Jedi,

Just keep praying that the Supreme Court will hear the case and overturn it.&nbsp;

So far, the kids can still say "Under God" while saying the Pledge, so not all is lost .&nbsp; My daughter stated the ruling as such; "that's so stupid".&nbsp; Out of the mouths of babes .&nbsp; She also told me that if they take it out, she's still going to say it.&nbsp; I suppose she could receive a suspension for doing it, but I don't think so at that school.&nbsp;

It would illegal for anyone to get suspended for saying "under God" as part of the pledge or, for that matter, any religious message. No student is banned from saying any version of the pledge. It's just that schools aren't allowed to lead everyone in that pledge anymore... I still don't see why it's such a big deal.

 

[blader]

You know, this whole time, I actually didn't realize I was in the Fellowship forums. My mistake. I'll be on my way now. =P

 

[Jedi]

Jedi,

Just keep praying that the Supreme Court will hear the case and overturn it.

I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court will do just that, especially given the public outcry they received the last time this came up.

 

[Blindfaith]

With both the President and the Congress up in arms regarding the original decision, one would think the Supreme Court would listen.

But then again......you just never know